2015 (9) TMI 1723 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - Claim of exemption u/s.80-IB(11A) for Conversion charges AND Income from mango Trade - HELD THAT - The company is eligible for exemption u/s 801B(11a) of the IT Act for the profit on contract conversion and profit on mango purchased and Sold without physical delivery to contract conversion customers. The above activity is involved processing preservation and packing of fruits. On perusing the letter we find that it is not acknowledged by the Revenue for having received the letter and at the same time there is no dated mentioned in the letter. However since the Ld.CIT has passed a cryptic order without any reasoning we are of the considered view that the matter requires to be remitted back to the file of the Ld.CIT in order to pass a reasoned order after giving opportunity to the assessee of being heard. He shall also look into the detailed letter filed by the assessee before us which is supposed to have been filed before the Ld. CIT (A) on the earlier occasion while deciding the issue. Appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of claim of exemption under Section 80-IB(11A) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Assessment order challenged under Section 263 for being erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appellant, an assessee engaged in manufacturing fruit pulp, challenged the denial of exemption under Section 80-IB(11A) by the Commissioner of Income Tax. The dispute arose from the treatment of sales of mangoes without processing, conversion charges, and the eligibility for deduction under Section 80IB(11A). The Commissioner found the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, leading to a revision order under Section 263. The appellant contested this decision, arguing for eligibility based on processing activities and preservation of fruits. The Tribunal noted the appellant's detailed submissions supporting their eligibility for the exemption, emphasizing the processing nature of their activities. However, due to the lack of acknowledgment or reasoning in the Commissioner's order, the Tribunal remitted the matter back for a reasoned decision after providing the appellant with a fair hearing.

2. The Tribunal's analysis focused on the procedural aspects of the case, highlighting the lack of acknowledgment of the appellant's detailed letter by the Revenue and the absence of reasoning in the Commissioner's order. Despite the appellant's arguments and submissions supporting their eligibility for the exemption, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of a reasoned decision and the opportunity for the appellant to be heard. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, indicating a procedural victory for the appellant while remitting the case back for a more detailed and reasoned consideration by the Commissioner.